Supreme Court denies emergency injunction in contraception case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Hobby Lobby’s request for an emergency injunction to block the health reform law’s contraceptive coverage requirements and said it will not decide the case before lower courts have ruled.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the store owner doesn't meet the extremely high standards required for a preliminary injunction. It's not "absolutely" clear that they need the injunction and lower courts have been divided on whether to grant similar requests, she wrote, though she adds that the court doesn't have much experience with similar religious-based claims for emergency injunctions.

Text Size

-

+

reset

"Even without an injunction pending appeal, the applicants may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts. Following a final judgment, they may,if necessary, file a petition" for the Supreme Court to hear the case, she wrote.

Sotomayor received the request because she handles issues originating in the 10th Circuit.

The court also denied Hobby Lobby’s request — joined by Christian-book company Mardel — that the court take up its entire case, in which they argue that the coverage requirement forces them to provide contraceptives and emergency contraceptives that violate their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby says it will face fines beginning Jan. 1 without the injunction. The case will go back to the district court for a ruling on the merits: Can the Obama administration require that employers — who say they have religious objections to contraceptive coverage — provide insurance coverage of those drugs in their employee plans?

The Christian-owned Oklahoma-based arts and craft store chain filed suit against the Obama administration’s employer contraceptives coverage rule in an Oklahoma district court in September.

It was denied an injunction by the district court and quickly appealed.

Hobby Lobby’s case is one of more than 40 suits filed against the rule by private companies, schools and non-profit organizations.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:20 p.m. on December 26, 2012.

O h no businesses now want to hide behind religion to avoid following the laws of the land. If your religion believes inter racial marriage is immoral does that mean a business owner doesn't have to provide insurance to interracial employees? If your religion doesn't believe in blood tranfusions is it okay for a business owner to not provide medical coverage? I have no problem with churches and church employees being exempt but businesses must follow the law of the land.

Nobody's religious rights have been denied in any way. If the Health Care Law begins to require that women TAKE contraceptives, then people's rights have been denied. It's no different than laying out a really nice celebratory buffet with coffee and tea for your office party. Can your Mormon employees claim that you are taking away their religious freedoms by placing coffee and tea on the buffet? No, not unless you force them to drink the coffee and tea.

The vast majority of people who receive health insurance through their employer must pay a portion of the cost, so why is it so difficult to just say that the employee contribution covers the drugs the employer dislikes. This is nothing short of a business owner trying to force his beliefs on his employees, a clear violation of the Constitution. Can a Mormon business owner who morally object to smoking and drinking refuse to provide coverage for lung cancer or Cirrhosis?

MLWM-check your keyboard for a conspiracy to keep your caps lock STUCK, then onto the next conspiracy theory: Birtherism is dead-get over it; consider moving to another country and don't let the door hit ya in the butt.

Conservatives agains contraception? Not sure why-I guess they DO want Government intrusion?? It's apparent that they have a perverse need to be in the bedrooms of others, yet they claim they're so wholesome.

Myra, that is the wrong analogy. It would be like the federal government forcing the company to put coffee and tea on the buffet when the it is against the owner's religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the choice of the employees to drink the coffee and tea.

Can you in your ultimate wisdom please explain what part of the constitution an employer who does not want to provide contraceptives would be violating? Aslo please explain how the employer would be forcing their beliefs on the employee. The employer is not saying they would fire an employee for using contraceptives or anything of the sort to force the person to accept the employers beliefs, all the employer is saying they dont want to provide something that violates their religious beliefs it has nothing to do with the employees beliefs.

Before you go on some tirade, I am a free thinker who believes that religion is fact less and based on a human desire to fullfil a void in their lives for what we cannot explain or prove. It is something I do not understand the need for and I will honestly state that I believe all people who practice religion are foolish becasue they are placing faith in something that cannot be substantiated. However, I fully respect that it is an individuals right under the Constitution to practice religion freely. I also do not believe that the idea of "Seperation of Church and State" exists under the constitution. The only thing the Constitution actually does is prevent the establishment of a national religion and it protects the citizens who choose to practice religion from having the government interfere with the practice of the religion of their choice.

Far too often people take an overly liberal view of what the Constitution actually states. How hard is it? But somehow, far too many aspects of the Constitution have been politicized and for over 200 years the Supreme Court has violated the Constiution in their ruling out of nothing more than political posturing. Even is enough and it is time for people to stand up and demand that the what is really simple interpretation of the Constitution be followed.

Just think about this situation. You have an employer who because of their religious beliefs does not support the use of contraceptives. Can you really not see that the government requiring this employer to provide contraceptives is a violation of the employers right to freely practice his religion. Nothing in the Constitution states that contraceptives must be provided to employees so how can you argue the employees rights are being violated?

Maybe you should consider taking heed to your screen name before posting. Nothing about a business not wanting to provide contraceptives because of religious beliefs is intruding into anyones bedroom. The only thing that is being said by the employer is if the employee wants contraceptives the employee can pay for them themselves. How is that intruding into anyones bedroom. Obviously the employer is only saying they dont want to pay for something that they dont believe in. Nothing about the employers stance is saying they want to intrude their employees bedrooms and inspect for contraceptives and if cound the employee will be fired. Next time, why not try applying a little common sense before spewing your hatred of the right which is obviously based on ignorance.

Let's see: complaints about insurance-funded coverage for contraception for women, but no complaints about insurance-funded coverage for ED treatment for men. The complaint seems in thematic agreement with the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision affirming that it's a woman's fault for being too attractive and that she should pay the price. Eve was a long, long time ago, and Adam then or the dentist now could always say no, but woman has been cast as temptress, deceiver, and misleader ever since. War on women? What war on women?

(BuffaloBill-

Just guessing but mlwm's #5 might have been a sarcasm-meter calibration test.)